CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ8984860
Regular
Dec 30, 2020

AMADOR ORTIZ GARCIA vs. ISEC, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal of the WCJ's order quashing the deposition of Dr. Mouradian, an Agreed Medical Examiner. The Board found the record insufficient to evaluate the defendant's due process claim regarding the quashed deposition. Consequently, the order quashing the deposition was rescinded, and the case was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings. This decision allows for a proper review of the issues and evidence.

Petition for RemovalAgreed Medical ExaminerWCJDue ProcessQuashed DepositionReport and RecommendationDiscovery ClosureMandatory Settlement ConferenceFindings of FactAdmitted Evidence
References
2
Case No. ADJ7621876
Regular
Jan 05, 2012

DAVID ESPINOZA RODRIGUEZ vs. WEST COAST PAINTING, INC., CNA CLAIMS SERVICES

This case concerns defendant West Coast Painting's petition to remove an order quashing their Notice of Deposition for applicant David Espinoza Rodriguez. The defendant argued the quashing occurred in a non-noticed walk-through and asserted new circumstances, including potential back surgery and treatment outside the MPN. However, the Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that the defendant failed to demonstrate good cause for a subsequent deposition and that no irreparable harm would result from denying it. The denial is consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.610, which generally limits parties to one deposition per deponent without good cause shown.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardQuashed DepositionSubsequent DepositionGood CauseSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWCJ ReportMedical Provider NetworkBack Surgery
References
2
Case No. ADJ1443437 LAO 0869505 ADJ2073136 LAO 0859208 ADJ2254995 LAO 0869595 ADJ4428071 LAO 0869514 ADJ4561708 LAO 0859207
Regular
Oct 25, 2018

JACQUELINE STELLY vs. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, finding that the WCJ erred in quashing the deposition of Dr. Majcher. The Board determined that the defendant violated a stipulation by seeking a trial date from a different judge without notice. Additionally, the defendant failed to comply with procedural requirements for quashing a deposition notice and the applicant's due process rights necessitate the opportunity to depose Dr. Majcher. Therefore, the WCJ's order was rescinded, and the matter was returned for further proceedings, including the deposition of Dr. Majcher.

Petition for RemovalQuash DepositionStipulation ViolationDue ProcessEx ParteMeet and ConferWCJQualified Medical EvaluatorSupplemental ReportDiscovery
References
6
Case No. ADJ3213121 (LBO 0361407)
Regular
Aug 30, 2010

GLENDA M. BRUCE vs. COMPTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

The Appeals Board granted defendant's petition for removal, reversing a prior order that quashed the applicant's deposition. The applicant amended her claim to include hair loss and a fall after her last deposition. The Board found good cause for an additional deposition, as the defendant did not have notice of these new claims prior to the previous depositions. Therefore, the applicant is required to submit to a fifth deposition specifically addressing the hair loss and fall allegations.

Petition for RemovalQuashed DepositionCompensable ConsequencesAmended ApplicationIndustrial InjuryHair LossFallPrior NoticeFifth DepositionRescinded Order
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2002

Mayancela v. Almat Realty Development, LLC

This case concerns an appeal of an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, dated April 2, 2002. The order had granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on the same claim. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision. The dismissal was based on the "recalcitrant worker" defense, as the plaintiff admitted misusing an A-frame ladder despite explicit instructions. The court also rejected the plaintiff's attempt to contradict his prior deposition testimony with a post-deposition affidavit.

Recalcitrant Worker DefenseSummary JudgmentLabor LawLadder AccidentDeposition TestimonySelf-Serving AffidavitAppellate ReviewNew York LawPersonal Injury
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American International Telephone, Inc. v. Mony Travel Services, Inc.

Plaintiff American International Telephone, Inc. (AIT) sought an extension of time to serve defendant Carlos Duran, president of Mony Travel Services of Florida, Inc., after initial attempts at service were unsuccessful and Duran claimed to have moved. The court found AIT exercised reasonably diligent efforts and that extending the deadline would not prejudice Duran, who was aware of the action. Concurrently, Mony Travel Services of Florida moved for a protective order against depositions of Duran and its counsel, Francis Markey. The court denied the protective order for Duran's deposition, allowing inquiry into service of process issues. However, the protective order for Markey was granted, as mailing a copy of the complaint to an attorney is not a valid method of service under Florida law. The court granted AIT an extension to serve Duran until October 26, 2001, with conditions regarding deposition timing.

Service of ProcessExtension of TimeProtective OrderDepositionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureJurisdictionGood CausePrejudiceFlorida LawCivil Procedure
References
8
Case No. ADJ9924983 ADJ9925009
Regular
Feb 26, 2019

JESUS RODRIGUEZ GARCIA vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed defendant's petition for reconsideration and denied their petition for removal. The Board found that the order quashing the second deposition of Dr. Aun was a discovery order, not a final decision, and thus not subject to reconsideration. Defendant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or substantial prejudice required for removal, as they could still petition the court to reevaluate the need for the depositions. The Board also found no violation of due process, as defendant had an opportunity to present their arguments to the judge.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalProtective OrderQuash DepositionDue ProcessIrreparable HarmSubstantial PrejudiceMedical EvidenceDeposition Leave
References
10
Case No. ADJ7626694
Regular
Oct 03, 2011

NARKEITHIA TATE vs. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY; EMPLOYMENT AND HUMAN SERVICES

This case involves applicant Narkeiithia Tate's petition for reconsideration of a Notice of Intention to Order Dismissal. The WCJ initially ordered dismissal due to the applicant's failure to appear at her deposition and multiple conferences. The applicant claimed she was absent due to a family emergency and lack of knowledge about the deposition. The Appeals Board dismissed her petition for reconsideration because the initial notice was not a final order. However, the Board granted removal on its own motion, deeming the petition a timely objection, and returned the case to the trial level for a new judge to determine good cause for her absences.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationNotice of Intention to Order DismissalFailure to AppearDepositionWCAB ConferencesGood CauseRemovalAdministrative Law JudgeFinal Order
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2015

Tuzzolino v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y.

In July 2013, the plaintiff was injured in a fall at the defendant's plant, sustaining a wrist fracture, and injuries to the lower back, right leg, and foot. He underwent a lumbar laminectomy in April 2014 and sought treatment from various healthcare providers, including a spinal surgeon. The plaintiff subsequently commenced an action alleging Labor Law violations. The defendant served subpoenas on the plaintiff's nonparty treating healthcare providers, claiming the testimony was unavailable through other sources. The plaintiff moved to quash these subpoenas and sought a protective order. The motion court granted the plaintiff's motion, and the appellate court affirmed, ruling that the defendant failed to demonstrate the testimony sought was unrelated to diagnosis and treatment or that it was the only means of obtaining the information. The court emphasized that the treating providers' records were accessible for review by the defendant's experts.

SubpoenasProtective OrderMedical RecordsTreating PhysiciansDepositionsDiscoveryAppellate ReviewLabor Law ViolationsPersonal InjurySpinal Surgery
References
3
Case No. ADJ6966334
Regular
Jan 12, 2012

WALTER CADENA vs. UNITED CARRIER, APPLIED RISK SERVICES

Lien claimants sought reconsideration of an order compelling a deposition, arguing it violated a prior consolidation order. The Board dismissed the reconsideration petition as the Minute Order was not a final decision. However, the Board granted removal to allow Associate Chief Judge Kahn to clarify if his prior consolidation order applied to the deposition. The deposition order is suspended pending ACJ Kahn's review and advisement within 20 days.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder of Consolidation for DiscoveryAdministrative Law JudgeAssociate Chief JudgeMinute OrderDepositionLien ClaimantsDiscovery Matters
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 24,182 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational